Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 546. TRIALS
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 546.10 (2026)

Challenges

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any civil action or proceeding either party may challenge the panel, or individual jurors thereon, for the same causes and in the same manner as in criminal trials, except that the number of peremptory challenges to be allowed on either side shall be as provided in this section. Before challenging a juror, either party may examine the juror in reference to qualifications to sit as a juror in the cause. A sufficient number of jurors shall be called in the action so that six shall remain after the exercise of the peremptory challenges as provided in this section. Each party shall be entitled to two peremptory challenges, which shall be made alternately beginning with the defendant. The parties to the action shall be deemed two, all plaintiffs being one party, and all defendants being the other party, except, in case two or more defendants have adverse interests, the court, if satisfied that the due protection of their interests so requires, may allow the defendant or defendants on each side of the adverse interests not to exceed two peremptory challenges. When the peremptory challenges have been exhausted or declined, the first six of the remaining jurors shall constitute the jury.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1987–1999 · leading case: Hunt v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 460 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hunt v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, 460 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 16× “We do caution counsel that a proper method of preserving the issue is for the objecting party to place the objection on the record at the time made, detailing the reasons supporting the claim that an allowance of additional challenges is inappropriate.”
State v. Chambers, 589 N.W.2d 466 (Minn. 1999). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 546.10 (1998). The trial court has substantial discretion in conducting voir dire, and we will not overturn a trial court’s decision absent an abuse of this discretion.”
Hunt v. Regents of Univ., 446 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “Minn.Stat. § 546.10 (1988) governs the allowance of peremptory challenges at trial.”
Shipka v. Helvig, 405 N.W.2d 248 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 546.10 (1980) provides, in part: Each party shall be entitled to two peremptory challenges * * *.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.